Was white ...tackling red ...OR ...was white deliberately knocking the ball from red

[Browner]

....the defender's tackle is immediately followed by the BC's team-mate binding on.

Then it meets the definition of maul, albeit I understand why a mauckle is in vogue.

I'm happy that the principles established in 4\2011 carry forward to all aspects of the game. Ie ....adjudicate on the person responsible.

 

[Browner]

So far the poll is supporting the view that there was an attempt to tackle the BC (83%).
Your thoughts at this stage please Browner? (Should I have said Mr. Browner? My question is a polite one but just seems the opposite as written. Is there a "Polite and Genuinely Interested" smiley?)

I m not ignoring you matey, just give it a little longer, I'll reply to you in due course.xx

 

[The Fat]

yes the bind order is important.
If it wasnt , a bound pair of players couldn't result in the BC being tackled by the first arriving opponent without deliberatec maul collapse simultaneously occurring.

So you are saying that 90% of mauls that form following a line out are not mauls because they didn't start with a BC and opposition player in contact before one of the lifters bind to the jumper?

 

[RobLev]

Then it meets the definition of maul, albeit I understand why a mauckle is in vogue.

I'm happy that the principles established in 4\2011 carry forward to all aspects of the game. Ie ....adjudicate on the person responsible.

So it is play on in my scenario, because it's a maul not a tackle?

But (assuming that you are correct and the bind order is important) if the BC's team mate had been bound on first, the rip would have been in a tackle not a maul and hence would it be adjudicated a knock-on by the BC?

 

[OB..]

yes the bind order is important.

I don't see that the law specifies an order.
[LAWS]A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier.[/LAWS]"And" merely says the two components are required, and is not the equivalent of "and then ..."

If it wasnt , a bound pair of players couldn't result in the BC being tackled by the first arriving opponent without deliberatec maul collapse simultaneously occurring.

We allow the one-man sack at a lineout provided he tackles rather than binds.

 

[Browner]

We allow the one-man sack at a lineout provided he tackles rather than binds.

Direct comparison between different game areas doesn't always work. You're usually the one to highlight that.

IF maul construction doesnt follow the order as written , then you must be suggesting that if x2 teammates bind onto the BC , then as soon as an opponent engages/binds onto any of them.. it then becomes a maul? Do I understand you correctly?

 

[Browner]

So it is play on in my scenario, because it's a maul not a tackle?

But (assuming that you are correct and the bind order is important) if the BC's team mate had been bound on first, the rip would have been in a tackle not a maul and hence would it be adjudicated a knock-on by the BC?

A ripped ball in a tackle is clarified in 4\2011 & 1\2014 , so...... no knock on.

 

[Browner]

So you are saying that 90% of mauls that form following a line out are not mauls because they didn't start with a BC and opposition player in contact before one of the lifters bind to the jumper?

I think we'd all agree that the line out is a mish mash of law adherences, lifting has been added in modern times and the effect on other laws weren't entirely thought through/reworded. But as always the pros invented a new ruse, we didn't see sacking until recently.

Crikey if a teammate and I lift a player in open play and someone chucks him the ball would we be protected from opposition contact if we carried him down the pitch above our heads..!!!! .

 

[RobLev]

A ripped ball in a tackle is clarified in 4\2011 & 1\2014 , so...... no knock on.

So on this point you disagree with Ian, who says a rip in a tackle is (assuming it goes forward from the BC) a knock-on under 1/2014?

 

[The Fat]

So on this point you disagree with Ian, who says a rip in a tackle is (assuming it goes forward from the BC) a knock-on under 1/2014?

Is that really what Ian says about a ball that is ripped from the BC?

 

[RobLev]

Is that really what Ian says about a ball that is ripped from the BC?

That's what I take from his #21, which should be read in full; he says, inter alia:

if a player is attempting to tackle an opponent, then ANY contact with the ball (in possession of the ball carrier) is part of the tackle, and therefore if the ball goes forward from the Ball Carrier, it is a knock on.

He subsequently makes clear, again AIUI, that contact includes rip.

 

[Ian_Cook]

That's what I take from his #21, which should be read in full; he says, inter alia:



He subsequently makes clear, again AIUI, that contact includes rip.

Perhaps, but then of course, there is the real world to consider.

I have watched, played coached and refereed Rugby Union Football on and off for over 40 years. I have still yet to see a player tackle a ball carrier with one arm while ripping the ball out with the other. Its an angels-on-pinheads scenario. No player with any sense is going to risk the ball carrier slipping the tackle for sake of a one-in-a-million shot, and if it was easy, we would see a lot of it, and....

Its a case of, "I'll decide when I see it"

 

[The Fat]

Poll still running at 82% (tackle) to 18% (deliberate knock).
Four days since any interest so I'd say done and dusted.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Did you see the strip in the Crusaders v Force game last night Fat?

A Force player stripped the ball without tacking the ball carrier. Referee ruled ripped out, play on.

 

[The Fat]

Did you see the strip in the Crusaders v Force game last night Fat?

A Force player stripped the ball without tacking the ball carrier. Referee ruled ripped out, play on.

A night of reffing juniors meant no Super Rugby for me last night. Will wait for replays.

Making up for it today though as senior appointment cancelled due to a forfeit.

 

[Browner]

Will wait for replays.

Stripping, isn't the contention.... Be worth seeing a clip though.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Well, here's another one

Jane the was the ball carrier

Ripped by Burrell and backward from him

Knock on against Jane

Correct call by South African referee

Nuff said really.

 

[RobLev]

Well, here's another one

Jane the was the ball carrier

Ripped by Burrell and backward from him

Knock on against Jane

Correct call by South African referee

Nuff said really.

No tackle, so our disagreement - which is over a rip/strip in a tackle - is irrelevant. If JP thought it was a rip, he got the law flat wrong according to 1/2014.

 

[Browner]

From memory, it wasn't clear to me that Burrell ripped the ball out of Janes possession, looked like Jane lost possession and therefore it looked like a bog standard knock on.

As for the poll, it shows a clear majority of voters viewed it as a tackle attempt, rather than a ball knocking attempt.

Whether all voters were aware of 1/2014's existence ( or 4\2011 for that matter) is unprovable, but I'd hope so, it was worth running nevertheless and I suspect another incident will crop up before long for us to debate.